Steeves v. Internal Revenue Service
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Dean Steeves v. Irs (2021-11-18) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Dean Steeves' motion for reconsideration of a prior order requiring him to retain counsel for the organization he represents. The court denied the motion, reaffirmed the requirement that organizations must be represented by licensed counsel, and extended the deadline for substitution of counsel to June 22, 2020, warning of dismissal for failure to prosecute if compliance is not achieved.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“This motion for reconsideration violates the Court’s standing order in civil cases, ¶3(e). Furthermore, the motion is meritless.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established legal principle that only natural persons may appear pro se in federal court, while organizations (including unincorporated associations and religious bodies) must be represented by licensed counsel. The plaintiff's argument that his organization is not legally required to have an attorney is contrary to binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. The denial is procedurally sound as it also cites the local standing order prohibiting such motions. |
Deadline for Substitution of Counsel Extended“In order to avoid a judgment by forfeiture, the Court sua sponte extends the deadline for Plaintiff’s attorney to substitute in, until June 22, 2020.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the docket and prevent a default judgment by forfeiture. Given the plaintiff's non-compliance and the court's desire to decide the case on the merits, granting a final, short extension is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion to ensure due process while maintaining case management efficiency. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies the legal error in the plaintiff's motion (the belief that an organization can proceed pro se) and cites the correct binding authorities from the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit to refute it. The court also appropriately manages the case by setting a final deadline for compliance and warning of dismissal for failure to prosecute, which is a standard and appropriate remedy for non-compliance with court orders regarding representation.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEAN ALLEN STEEVES, Acting Case No.: 20cv978-LAB Trustee of Brother’s Keeper 12 Ministries ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 RECONSIDERATION; AND Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER REQUIRING 15 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 16 Defendant. 17 18 The Court on June 2 ordered Plaintiff Dean Steeves to retain and substitute 19 counsel immediately. His new attorney was required to substitute in as counsel no 20 later than June 15, 2020. 21 Steeves instead filed a response, asserting that the organization he purports 22 to represent, Brother’s Keeper Ministries, as a matter of law is not required to be 23 represented by an attorney. This motion for reconsideration violates the Court’s 24 standing order in civil cases, ¶3(e). Furthermore, the motion is meritless. 25 Only natural persons can appear pro se in federal court; any kind of 26 organization, however it is denominated, must be represented by counsel. See 27 Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 28 217 (1993) (“[A] corporation, partnership, or association may appear in federal 1 court only through licensed counsel . . . .”); D-Beam Ltd. Partnership v. Roller 2 Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is a longstanding rule 3 that corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court 4 through an attorney.”) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). The fact 5 that an organization is not registered, officially recognized, or organized under 6 some law (e.g., incorporated) makes no difference. See Rowland, 506 U.S. at 7 196, 201–03 (association of prison inmates could not proceed pro se);1 Sewer Alert 8 Committee v. Pierce County, 791 F.2d 796, 798 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that 9 non-attorneys could not represent ad hoc committee of residents). This applies 10 equally to churches and religious bodies. Gen. Conf. Corp. of Seventh-Day 11 Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 12 n.1 (9th Cir. 1989); Church of the New Testament v. United States, 783 F.2d 771, 13 773–74 (9th Cir. 1986). 14 This is not the first time Steeves has been ordered to retain counsel on behalf 15 of the Ministry. In a previous related case, 20cv204-LAB (BGS), Steeves v. Internal 16 Revenue Service, Steeves was ordered to retain counsel, and did so. 17 In order to avoid a judgment by forfeiture, the Court sua sponte extends the 18 deadline for Plaintiff’s attorney to substitute in, until June 22, 2020. Because 19 Steeves has apparently spent the time he was given drafting his motion for 20 reconsideration, he should not expect that any more extensions will be granted. 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 26 27 1 The Supreme Court treated it as obvious that only natural persons, that is individuals, could appear pro se. See United States v. Havelock, 664 F.3d 1284, 28 1 The Court intends to decide this action on the merits, if possible. At the same 2 ||time, the Court does not intend to allow this case to linger on the docket and 3 ||needlessly delay the IRS’s investigation. If Steeves does not comply with this 4 order, this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: June 16, 2020 8 / wid 4. Gay wr 9 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 10 Chief United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28